DHIRAJKUMAR SAVABHAI SUTARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside an order dtd. 4/9/2021 passed by the Development Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed order dtd. 20/12/2018 passed by the District Development Office, Aravalli, by which in exercise of powers under Sec. 59 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short "the Act") the petitioner who held the office of Sarpanch was removed.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh O. Gidiya appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the FIR has been registered against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act however, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. It is submitted that as there was a dispute between two villagers with regard to the eve-teasing of one lady, the petitioner had acted as a mediator to get the matter settled and it is in regard of this settlement that the amount was received as a part of settlement when the trap was carried out. It is submitted that the receipt of money during the trap has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR pertaining to passing of resolution to excavate and deepen the village pond.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the respondent-authorities submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are clear and make out the offence at prima-facie stage and hence, the offence has been registered and in the allegations made, the role is also attributed which would attract the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned advocate has submitted that the nature of role attributed to the petitioner clearly attracts the requirement of Sec. 59 of the Act and therefore, no fault can be found in exercising the powers under Sec. 59 of the Act to remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Learned advocate has also submitted that the arguments made pertaining to the settlement aspect between two villagers in an eve-teasing case appears to be an afterthought and at best can be treated as an defence which the petitioner will have to be established by leading the evidence however, when the FIR is registered and the petitioner is arrested for a particular period, the provisions of Sec. 59 of the Act would be automatically attracted.